• by David Goetzl  @dgoetzl, June 6, 2006

Last week's report about the prevalence of commercial messages had to send some shivers down Madison Avenue spines. After all, along with DVRs and fragmentation, the ad/marketing community is increasingly concerned about the seemingly irreversible growth of clutter--that agglomeration of commercials, promos, interstitials, billboards, and, sad to say, PSAs--that makes it progressively more difficult for their creative to break through.

Moreover, the new research from TNS Media Intelligence demonstrated how much another marketing weapon may be adding to the clutter parade. Whether the term du jour is product placement, brand integration, or branded entertainment, the growing tactic is clearly resulting in more commercialism directed at viewers. And that leaves marketers facing yet another hurdle to overcome in the quest to make their messages resonate.

Another potential problem: too much commercial content could lead not only to consumers tuning out pitches, but worse--spark a backlash where they just avoid heavily commercialized programs altogether.

Some of the findings from the TNS research include: Reality shows display an average of nearly eight minutes an hour worth of product placement (TNS refers to it as "brand appearances"). Add that to the 18-plus minutes of commercials, and shows like "America's Next Top Model" or "Survivor" can display marketing messages that take up 40 percent of each hour. Even scripted shows, where product placement occurs less often, deliver commercialized content that consumes an average of 32 percent of each prime-time hour.

Among specific shows, one of the most cluttered is the Fox smash hit "American Idol." TNS research shows that its commercial content covers an average 67 percent of each hour--nearly 19 minutes of commercials and a weighty 21 and a half minutes of "brand appearances." While the mass of commercialism (product placement + ads) threatens to create the aforementioned viewer backlash for certain shows--"The Apprentice" may already be experiencing this--"American Idol" appears to be immune. Viewers seem to be fine with serving as marketing targets--even almost 70 percent of the time--just as long as they get to watch Paula praise, Simon upbraid, and amateurs shoot for the big time.

Take the May 24 finale: Viewership jumped 20 percent compared to last year, while ratings in the 18-to-49 demo rose 14 percent. That demo jump is a strong indication that viewers are at least willing to put up with the fusillade of brand messages, since younger viewers are likely to be the most cynical and the first to react negatively.

Perhaps the most prominent product placement display on the "Idol" finale came from Ford (evaluated and ranked via research firm iTVX as one of the five most effective product placements last week). Ford offered a music video featuring "Idol" finalists Katharine McPhee and Taylor Hicks happily driving a Mustang together (also on display were the Ford Escape and what looked like a Focus). Then, cut to pitchman, er, host Ryan Seacrest. He extols the Mustang and tells both McPhee and Hicks they'll both take one home. The pair are jubilant, and celebrate wildly.

Part of the reason the product placement may be inoffensive to viewers is that Ford comes off as sort of a hero. By the time the five months of each "Idol" season are over, America has fallen in love with the finalists--after all, they voted for them--and a company that's helping them gets high marks from the singers' admiring fans.

Ford is one of three charter sponsors of "Idol," joining Coke and Cingular. Now comes word from Advertising Age that Fox may be willing to take on a fourth top-level sponsor next year, perhaps a fast-food chain.

Could that mean Big Macs would join Coke cups in front of Paula, Simon, and Randy? This being "Idol," viewers would probably eat it up. But can less popular shows withstand the ever-increasing tide of product placement as it serves to increase clutter? Both advertisers and viewers will have a say in that.